RESULTS: Functional retrovirus particles pseudotyped with henipavirus F and G glycoproteins displayed proper target cell tropism and entry and infection was dependent on the presence of the HeV and NiV receptors ephrinB2 or B3 on target cells. The functional specificity of the assay was confirmed by the lack of reporter-gene signals when particles bearing either only the F or only G glycoprotein were prepared and assayed. Virus entry could be specifically blocked when infection was carried out in the presence of a fusion inhibiting C-terminal heptad (HR-2) peptide, a well-characterized, cross-reactive, neutralizing human mAb specific for the henipavirus G glycoprotein, and soluble ephrinB2 and B3 receptors. In addition, the utility of the assay was also demonstrated by an examination of the influence of the cytoplasmic tail of F in its fusion activity and incorporation into pseudotyped virus particles by generating and testing a panel of truncation mutants of NiV and HeV F.
CONCLUSIONS: Together, these results demonstrate that a specific henipavirus entry assay has been developed using NiV or HeV F and G glycoprotein pseudotyped reporter-gene encoding retrovirus particles. This assay can be conducted safely under BSL-2 conditions and will be a useful tool for measuring henipavirus entry and studying F and G glycoprotein function in the context of virus entry, as well as in assaying and characterizing neutralizing antibodies and virus entry inhibitors.
METHODS: This was a descriptive, retrospective analysis, conducted at the Department of Paediatrics, University Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. All children who had esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy from January 2008 to June 2011 were included. An endoscopy was considered appropriate when its indication complied with the NASPGHAN and ASGE guideline. All endoscopic findings were classified as either positive (presence of any endoscopic or histologic abnormality) or negative (no or minor abnormality, normal histology); effecting a positive contributive (a change in therapeutic decisions or prognostic consequences) or non-contributive yield (no therapeutic or prognostic consequences).
RESULTS: Overall, 76% of the 345 procedures (231 EGD alone, 26 colonoscopy alone, 44 combined EGD and colonoscopy) performed in 301 children (median age 7.0 years, range 3 months to 18 years) had a positive endoscopic finding. Based on the NASPGHAN and ASGE guideline, 99.7% of the procedures performed were considered as appropriate. The only inappropriate procedure (0.3%) was in a child who had EGD for assessment of the healing of gastric ulcer following therapy in the absence of any symptoms. The overall positive contributive yield for a change in diagnosis and/or management was 44%. The presence of a positive endoscopic finding was more likely to effect a change in the therapeutic plan than an alteration of the initial diagnosis. A total of 20 (5.8%) adverse events were noted, most were minor and none was fatal.
CONCLUSION: The NASPGHAN and ASGE guideline is more likely to predict a positive endoscopic finding but is less sensitive to effect a change in the initial clinical diagnosis or the subsequent therapeutic plan.
Methods: We selected the recent publication of a landmark international randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing immediate and salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer, RADICALS-RT, for discussion over the weekend of January 16 to 17, 2021. Coordination included open access to the article and an asynchronous portion to decrease barriers to participation, cooperation of study authors (CP, MS) who participated to share deeper insights including a live hour, and curation of related resources and tweet content through a blog post and Wakelet journal club summary.
Discussion of Results: Our conversations created 2,370,104 impressions over 599 tweets with 51 participants spanning 11 countries and 5 continents. A quarter of the participants were from the US (13/51) followed by 10% from the UK (5/51). Clinical or Radiation Oncologists comprised 59% of active participants (16/27) with 62% (18/29) reporting giving aRT within the last 5 years. Discussion was interdisciplinary with three urologists (11%), three trainees (11%), and two physiotherapists (7%). Four months after the journal club its article Altmetric score had increased by 7% (214 to 229). Thematic analysis of tweet content suggested participants wanted clarification on definitions of adjuvant (aRT) and salvage radiotherapy (sRT) including indications, timing, and decision-making tools including guidelines; more interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration including with patients for study design including survivorship and meaningful outcomes; more effective knowledge translation including faster clinical trials; and more data including mature results of current trials, particular high-risk features (Gleason Group 4+, pT4b+, and margin-positive disease), implications of newer technologies such as PSMA-PET and genomic classifiers, and better explanations for practice pattern variations including underutilization of radiotherapy. This was further explored in the context of relevant literature.
Conclusion: Together, this global collaborative review on the postoperative management of prostate cancer suggested a stronger signal for the uptake of early salvage radiation treatment with careful PSA monitoring, more sensitive PSA triggers, and expected access to radiotherapy. Questions still remain on potential exceptions and barriers to use. These require better decision-making tools for all practice settings, consideration of newer technologies, more pragmatic trials, and better use of social media for knowledge translation.